Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Coming Problems For Rolling Out 3D TV

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the just-wait-for-our-3d-firehose dept.

Television 232

holy_calamity writes "Now that Sony has announced it will sell 3D-capable televisions in 2010, people are thinking more seriously about the rocky road leading to mainstream 3D TV adoption. New Scientist says that not only do program makers lack the technology to make shows in 3D, but that little is known about the creative problems posed by shooting shows that make use of a whole new dimension, and what works for audiences. Engadget's own pundit focuses on the more predictable problems of format wars between competing 3D display technologies. Suddenly 2010 seems a little too soon."

cancel ×

232 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Am I missing the point? (5, Funny)

dintech (998802) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365813)

My TV is already 3D. It goes with my 3D furniture and 3D house.

Re:Am I missing the point? (1)

red_dragon (1761) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365855)

Am I missing the point?

3D pr0n.

Re:Am I missing the point? (-1, Flamebait)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365901)

No, you're just being a nerdy douchebag. If you're going to nitpick, at least do it when someone is saying something incorrect instead of only when other nerdy douchebags will notice that it could be interpreted another way.

Re:Am I missing the point? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29365935)

Fuck I *so* wanna mod this +100K Righteous

Are you missing the point? (1, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365993)

Yes. I suspect it's intentional. Or genetic.

Re:Am I missing the point? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366243)

Yet the only girls in your life a 2D :P

Re:Am I missing the point? (1)

0110011001110101 (881374) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366421)

2d girls are easier to divorce, plus my 2d children don't mind being flushed

Re:Am I missing the point? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366525)

Yeah, well, I have a Sony XEL-1 [gizmodo.com] , you insensitive clod!!

... okay, maybe I don't deserve sympathy for that. It is Sony, after all.

This is a simple decision for me. (4, Insightful)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365815)

If I have to wear any sort of headgear, even paper glasses, it's a no deal. I like to multitask when I watch TV.

Re:This is a simple decision for me. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365861)

+1 insightful. I don't even watch TV most of the time, preferring to just listen. The only time I actually watch a show is for a favorite program like Doctor Who or Babylon 5.

I guess that's why I'm satisfied with my current set even though it's "only" an analog 720x486 NTSC set.

Re:This is a simple decision for me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366031)

Yeah, if you had a set that required polarization filter glasses and you tried to use any other LCD (computer, cell phone) at the same time, you'd only be able to see the image out of one eye. Pretty big drawback.

Re:This is a simple decision for me. (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366463)

Yeah, if you had a set that required polarization filter glasses and you tried to use any other LCD (computer, cell phone) at the same time, you'd only be able to see the image out of one eye. Pretty big drawback.

That's worst case when one filter is perfectly perpendicular to the polarization of the other display. It could be just at a lower intensity in both eyes (filter axes at - vs / in one eye, | vs \ in the other).

Re:This is a simple decision for me. (2, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366055)

Most television will probably remain 2D, but the 3D tech integrated for those shows that are in 3D will probably require something like polarized glasses for at least the first generation.

It will take some time to transition to 3D. At first, it will be for special use. I can see HBO shelling out for a new series, and some movies made for 3D presentation (mostly animated films right now) will benefit. Provided viewers can accept it, as it becomes more common, it will become less expensive, and eventually fairly ubiquitous, such that the next generation may regard 2D as we often regard black & white.

Re:This is a simple decision for me. (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366903)

SONY actually isn't planning on a polarization scheme (which would require either retrofitting existing TVs with polarization masks (column, typically, byebye half of the horizontal resolution, but that may be acceptable), or telling people 'tough luck - buy our new special 3D TV!') at first..

SONY is pushing 3D on BluRay as simply two separate streams and doesn't specify how this ends up being displayed.

SONY themselves, however, are at the moment pushing for shutter systems. I.e. the TV - and this can be 'any TV'* - displays the frame for the left eye, then the right, then the left, etc. and has a set of shutter glasses sync up with that.

* the asterisk for 'any TV' is because you do need a TV capable of handling a reasonable refresh rate. If your TV is currently capable of, say, 100Hz - which seems reasonable - you're left with a 50Hz 'flicker' per eye (flickering between the picture, and near-black).

There's obvious disadvantages to this method (cost of glasses, possibly eye strain from flickering, mostly), but an obvious advantage is that 'any TV' can work with this method without any retrofitting requirements.

vertigo (3, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366125)

If I have to wear any sort of headgear, even paper glasses, it's a no deal. I like to multitask when I watch TV.

You do bring up an interesting point indirectly. Will 3D perception even without headgear cause vertigo or other disorienting effects to people moving in a room? As the 3D gets better and better you will genuinely perceive the TV as a hole in the wall to another room but the attachment of that room to yours will be constantly shifting relative to your floor. Your brain may choose to perceive it as your floor is tilting.

Additionally the may be problems with filming in 3D that are hard for actors to accomodate. Certain kinds of motions in stereo vision systems can cause the image to become momentarily fuzzy. You can see this in many 3D animated movies where combinations of fast charater motions or doors moving while the camera pans result in anomolously fuzzy images in the otherwise infocus foreground. Someone once tried to explain to me why this is: I think it was somthing about the object sheering rates exceeding the framing rate. Supposedly this is why disney equiped theaters use a faster framing rate and show each frame four times to each eye interleaved.

We have binocular vision which means that our sense of 3D for left and right comes from our eyes directly but our sense of 3d for up and down is less direct by the eyes and aided by head motion which stereo 3d systems don't provide (actually get wrong).

hence it does make sense that how a scene is staged, how pans and zooms are done, and how moving objects traverse the screen will matter to filming good 3D products. and bad results can look worse than 2D, even seeimg less dimensional when they suddenly become fuzzy. and then there may be vertigo effects as well if you are moving around.

Re:This is a simple decision for me. (2, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366149)

If I have to wear any sort of headgear, even paper glasses, it's a no deal. I like to multitask when I watch TV.

Agreed. No way in hell I'm wearing anything extra to watch TV on a daily basis.

Maybe the occasional special program or event... I could probably put on some goofy glasses to watch the Super Bowl, for example...

But on a day-to-day basis? Not happening.

Re:This is a simple decision for me. (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366483)

That's fine, I for one welcome headgear for shows i watch and dont really look at the tv much for shows the background that i mainly listen to. For a film/nature doc/anything i actually sit down and watch I'd be fine wearing paper glasses (what is the advantage of fancy other stuff over paper glasses?).

But...but... they need new technology! (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365825)

Everyone's already upgraded to shiny-new HDTVs and premium HD services. The manufacturers need to invent a new "toy" that people will demand and spend copious amounts of cash. They need 3D to succeed.

Oh and forget Bluray. You say you already upgraded your movie collection from VHS to DVD to Bluray? That's a shame because the new technology will be 3D Crystal technology. They want us to keep repurchasing the same thing over-and-over.

(Yes I've turned cynical in my old age.)

   

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (5, Insightful)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365917)

I have yet to find that my movie watching experience was in any way noticably improved by watching a film on Blu-Ray instead of DVD.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365987)

That might be a personal preference. Keep in mind you need A Blu Ray Player, HD Cabling, HD Sound Devices (That support Dolby 5.1 preferably), and an HDTV.

If you don't notice a DIFFERENCE, then you aren't doing it right. If you don't find yourself more entertained, that means you enjoyed the movie for something more. I know what you're going to say, and I agree:

The Notebook does not need HD.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366381)

I get 5.1 off my DVD, and 480p works fine for live action movies. Yes, a full CG movie is better in Blu Ray, but everything else has a filter on it. They LOWER the resolution on movies on purpose, so you don't see all of the little defects. 480p and 1080p are not that different when you blur the source.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366729)

I've found the more recent Bond movies and those actiony type films have not done those soft filters when shooting an intense action sequence.

See, my understanding was that they reformatted it to fit my television screen, or at least thats what the little blue message at the beginning has led me to believe.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

ndavis (1499237) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365995)

I have yet to find that my movie watching experience was in any way noticably improved by watching a film on Blu-Ray instead of DVD.

While I will agree it does depend on the movie, but if you can't see the difference between Planet Earth or the Pixar movies when you compare the DVD to Blu-Ray then I have to say your TV just isn't big enough as Blu-Ray difference really is noticable when you get around the 50" mark on TVs.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366221)

It never ceases to amaze me how people insist on fixating on the visuals.
These are just one part of the movie. The entire "experience" needs to be
properly set up.Also, a properly configured surround sound setup goes a
lot further to create that "cinema experience" at home. This is likely
why a surprising number of people are unimpressed with HDTV or Bluray.

A much smaller screen, a well done sound system and a DVD can yield you
a much more effective "cinematic experience" than most HDTV setups.

This is why Lucas pushed for better sound in cinemas.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366649)

A much smaller screen, a well done sound system and a DVD can yield you
a much more effective "cinematic experience" than most HDTV setups.

This is why Lucas pushed for better sound in cinemas.

No, its not.

Lucas pushed for better sound in cinemas because sound quality is important to immersive cinematic experience, to be sure, but the relative effect of better sound vs. moving from SDTV to HDTV quality visuals wasn't part of that consideration, because film as used in theaters has (both now and at the time Lucas first made the push) a higher effective resolution than HDTV to start with, so Lucas wasn't comparing the effect of moving from SDTV visual quality to HDTV visual quality with the effect of sound improvements and choosing the latter.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (4, Funny)

Zantac69 (1331461) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366005)

You have got to be kidding!!! Blu-Ray gives you the time you need to make popcorn, go to the bathroom, mix a drink, and make yourself comfortable - all in the time it takes to load the menu screen.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366451)

You have got to be kidding!!! Blu-Ray gives you the time you need to make popcorn, go to the bathroom, mix a drink, and make yourself comfortable - all in the time it takes to load the menu screen.

Many conventional DVDs also possess this "feature."

I have a 119" projection system, but my reluctance to adopt Blu-Ray has everything to do with the fact that I find little plastic disks inconvenient. What few movies I buy, I rip to a computer hard drive (using HandBrake), and everything else is either downloaded or streamed. Blu-Ray rips take up A LOT more space.

The result of this is that almost nothing I watch is in full 1080p or even 1080i. The stuff I download or stream is typically 720p, at best, and my DVD rips are usually 480p (anamorphic)... and I don't care.

It still looks damn good, and I've yet to have somebody visit and ask me "why is the resolution so low?" while watching a movie on my system.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (3, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366307)

Speak for yourself, to me 480p vs 1080p is the difference between a movie and a moving picture. All the little details that that aren't important but somehow my brain notices aren't there are there in 1080p. Of course it doesn't make a good movie anu more than CDs make good music, but it's definately improvement if you ask me. Now if only we could get 1080p60 for smooth pans under all circumstances, I'd be happy. If you desperately want the p24 feel, you can put a filter on it.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366405)

How far do you sit from your TV. I have a chart to show you.
 
You are correct though, 60hz "p" (and eventually 120hz "p") television is the next wave.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366935)

Lets watch x at 480p and watch x at 1080p you will see a difference...

Watch y at 480p and watch z at 1080p you may know as much. Until you see y at 1080p

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366403)

I have yet to find that my movie watching experience was in any way noticably improved by watching a film on Blu-Ray instead of DVD.

I'd say it's either more about your standards or what you are accustomed to rather than the technology itself. I notice a massive difference but I'm a fan of high resolution and formats like VistaVision. A good example for me personally was when I spent time out of country and was exposed to PAL TV. I didn't quite notice a dramatic difference, it looked better but no shocking change. The shock was after six months coming back to the states. I kept wondering why my TV signal looked so fuzzy then it hit me it was the resolution drop. I think if you saw nothing but HiDef TV for several months then went back to DVD res you'd find standard def movies annoying. Also the quality of your equipment can make a huge difference. Back when I was into Laserdisk the startling thing was the improved sound quality when I ran it through even a mediocre stereo. It felt like I was back in a theater. If you are sitting there on a couch talking to a friend while watching a movie I doubt quality will improve your experience but if you watch a film properly on quality equipment the experience is similar to a theater only without the sticky floors, crying babies and teenage girls talking.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366757)

I have yet to find that my movie watching experience was in any way noticably improved by watching a film on Blu-Ray instead of DVD.

Back when I was into Laserdisk the startling thing was the improved sound quality when I ran it through even a mediocre stereo. It felt like I was back in a theater. If you are sitting there on a couch talking to a friend while watching a movie I doubt quality will improve your experience but if you watch a film properly on quality equipment the experience is similar to a theater only without the sticky floors, crying babies and teenage girls talking.

I highlighted the two aspects that indicate that your understanding of what is an appealing new technology are out of touch with reality.
Laserdisk was a technology whose primary appeal was the inability of the consumer to record to it. Since the consumer did not view that as a desirable feature, Laserdisk failed (there were other reasons, but they all amounted to the fact that Laserdisk did not have any features that most consumers found worth the effort).
You talk about the theater experience as if it is better than watching at home. The only thing I have ever found compelling about watching a movie in the theater is the large screen. Large screen televisions now make that obsolete.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

MistrX (1566617) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365919)

Cynical perhaps but that doesn't make it less true IMO.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366039)

There are moves to add 3D support to Blu-ray [n4g.com] . For now they just want to sell you a new TV. Selling you a new DVD player will wait for the next tech cycle.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366063)

Yea, why does progress have to keep happening. Can't they see we already have enough stuff. Why do they keep making more?

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366265)

The problem isn't "progress" but the sinking feeling that we all
are going to end up wearing those funky paper glasses from the 50's.

3-D is a technology that film makers continue to push and always seem
to fail at.

When 3-D movies are considered less of a joke, perhaps then it will
be time to try and push that technology into every living room on the
planet. Perhaps by then the technology aspects and the artistic aspects
will have been sorted out.

Why do we make more stuff? (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366535)

Yea, why does progress have to keep happening. Can't they see we already have enough stuff. Why do they keep making more?

Well, see, Ben Franklin and the forces of Hell were going to invade Earth at the start of the Rapture in order to harvest all the human-made Stuff - but the angels in heaven got greedy, imprisoned God, and delayed the Rapture in the hope of getting more Stuff for themselves - not realizing that doing so would also cause the world to become progressively more distorted as time went by.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

Garbad Ropedink (1542973) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366175)

3D TV just makes perfect sense when you think about it. I mean really. No current shows are 3D capable, no old shows are 3D capable. The technology exists to convert those shows to 3D but it's so costly and time consuming it's absolutely not worth it. So we have a gigantic library of content that won't benefit in any way from this technology. At least DVD offered something.

It's not like this is something people have been yearning for...

Beating their backs with willow branches lamenting to the heavens 'If only season 3 of Two and a Half Men had been filmed in stereoscopic 3D! What god would allow such injustice to exist in this world?! Christ died in vain!'

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (2, Informative)

shadwstalkr (111149) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366283)

Everyone's already upgraded to shiny-new HDTVs and premium HD services

According to Nielsen, only one-third of US homes had HDTVs in February 09. Most people don't care about HD, they'll just get one when their current TV breaks.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366735)

the only reason I will be buying an HD set is that when my current set breaks, I will have no options except flatscreen super HD +++ . This will come at premium dollars, as the cheap models using older but functional technology wont be in stores for purchase.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

theJML (911853) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366821)

Wow... that's a lot considering it just came into full mainstream a few years ago. 1/3rd of homes in the US is a LOT of people, especially considering we're in a recession and people "aren't buying luxury items", and HDTV's fit squarely in that category.

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (2, Funny)

Snarf You (1285360) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366311)

I know exactly how this is going to go down. The new format will be called RedRay. Each disc will contain 2 encodings of everything (BluRay for one eye, RedRay for the other). You will need another HDTV placed beside your existing HDTV (note that they must be identical, and very expensive). Then, in order to enjoy the 3D-o-vision, you must sit far enough away from the TV's that the images of each TV can overlap like an autostereogram [wikipedia.org] .

The good news? You save 79 cents because it doesn't require any special funky glasses! (Although you may need stronger prescription glasses after watching too many movies cross-eyed.)

Re:But...but... they need new technology! (1)

sorak (246725) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366605)

Of course. How else are we going to watch the new remake of "The Parent Trap"?

Everyone? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366705)

I think not. I know a lot of people who still don't have a HDTV. I still use my 20" CRT TV from 1996. Same with my parents, relatives, friends, strangers. Some don't even have a TV!

console wars (4, Insightful)

cruelworld (21187) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365939)

The next generation game consoles will support 3D TV's. I suspect that much like the PS3 driving bluray adoption whatever format the winning console chooses will be the new 3D TV format of choice.

People forget but real HDTV's came out more than 9 years ago. In the start there wasn't any HD content to watch either; just upconverted DVD's. But now every one I know has a HDTV set.

Re:console wars (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366259)

Can you come meet me? I'm a techie and I don't have an HDTV. Of course, I'm also a single dad living in a three bedroom apartment, so I have no need for a TV larger enough that HDTV would really matter.

Re:console wars (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366507)

maybe you're single because you start your conversations with creepy-ass lines like 'Can you come meet me?'

Re:console wars (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366351)

The PS3 will have a firmware update mid-2010 that will enable you to play games in 3D on a 3D TV

Re:console wars (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366415)

And there's still little HD content. Ok, the major networks have *most* programming in HD, but there's still stragglers. A lot of the basic cable channels (Comedy Central? MTV? VH1? off the top of my head) are still lacking HD channels, at least in my area.

IMHO, HD content is still far from being ubiquitous. It seems like it's still treated as a novelty, reserved for sports and higher budget productions. Does anyone have any stats on what percentage of total available common cable/satellite programming is truly available in HD?

Re:console wars (1)

AmIAnAi (975049) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366515)

Everyone may have a HDTV set, but how many are watching HD content. Most people are still happy with standard definition DVDs and TV and bought the set to get a large, slim screen - the HD part was just an extra.

One thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29365947)

It'll make hot actress cleavage shots easier.

of course (1)

loafula (1080631) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365975)

Of course there will be problems at first. Of course there will be a format war. Of course artists will have to experiment in a new medium before perfecting their art. OF FUCKING COURSE. This is true for just about EVERY new technology.

There is no need for it (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#29365997)

2D TV is just fine. HiDef TV is a great enhancement that enables more detail It works and it serves its purpose. What purpose does 3D solve? Things already look "real" enough.

FWIW, I have seen 3D porn. It didn't offer much in my opinion. 3D for games is good. 3D is good for anything that uses focus and concentration. 3D for TVs and movies? Not so much.

Don't do 3D crossfades. (3, Interesting)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366061)

Crossfading in 2D, when everything's in one focal plane, is no problem. In 3D, different objects are in different focal planes, and everything's a confused mess until the fade's over. Your eye has no idea how far away to focus. A lot of transitions will be jump-cuts, I suspect, with important objects in the old and new scenes at approximately the same focal depth to keep the eyes from straining from the transition. (Say... what would the 3D equivalent of a star-wipe be?)

Re:Don't do 3D crossfades. (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366107)

Crossfading in 2D, when everything's in one focal plane, is no problem. In 3D, different objects are in different focal planes, and everything's a confused mess until the fade's over.

Depends on the scenes. Going from one "complex" scene to a "simple" one, or vice versa, wouldn't be nearly as bad ("simple" meaning the entire scene was at basically the same focal depth – distant would work well, a near wall would still work tolerably well I suspect).

Re:Don't do 3D crossfades. (3, Interesting)

david.given (6740) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366235)

Say... what would the 3D equivalent of a star-wipe be?

You could do a z-axis wipe from far to near (probably after cross-fading the background plane). That would avoid most of the issues with shifting focal planes. It wouldn't be too dissimilar from the 2D effect where you cross-fade the background and then a bit later cross-fade the foreground. OTOH, in real 3D it might look really freaky --- only way to know is to try it...

Re:Don't do 3D crossfades. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366433)

Can someone translate whatever industry's jargon this is to geek English, please?

Re:Don't do 3D crossfades. (3, Informative)

Golias (176380) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366897)

Can someone translate whatever industry's jargon this is to geek English, please?

A "fade" is a technique in TV and film for changing from one scene to another. The simplest (and laziest) is a "jump cut", in which the image one your screen abruptly changes. Sometimes a fade is done by juxtaposing objects of similar geometry (i.e., pan the camera to a woman's circular parasol, cut to a shot of the sun in the same position on the screen, then pan down to the scene below.) Another option is to fade to black and then fade in the next scene (Tarantino has been doing that for his chapter breaks, and a lot of TV shows, such as LOST, like to fade from black coming out of commercials.)

A "crossfade" or "wipe", is when the image of the next scene is "wiped" over the previous one, like somebody sliding one painting in front of another. George Lucas used them A LOT when making the Star Wars movies.

The problem that Dr. Manhattan was talking about is, when you do a crossfade, you briefly have two images on the screen at once, which really messes up the stereoscopic 3D effect. For that reason, re-mastering a movie like Star Wars to be a 3D feature would be nearly impossible without major edits. If fact, you'd probably need to go back to the original raw footage and re-cut the entire movie.

Re:Don't do 3D crossfades. (1)

Xiterion (809456) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366937)

Here [lmgtfy.com] you [lmgtfy.com] go [lmgtfy.com] . Oh, almost forgot star wipe [justfuckinggoogleit.com] .

Re:Don't do 3D crossfades. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366777)

All the 3D TV technologies I've seen are at one focal depth. True voxel systems are pretty low resolution and very expensive.

Re:Don't do 3D crossfades. (2, Insightful)

greenglyph (814070) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366865)

I'd imagine a 3D crossfade would be something like standing in front of a shop window on a sunny day, where you can still the street behind you 'semitransparently' overlayed on the shop interior. Once your eye commits to either scene, you can essentially stay focused on it without difficulty. While a 3D crossfade would have changing scene opacities, the only difficult part would possibly be the 50/50 point, which may end up being no more disorienting than a traditional crossfade. The eye would likely stay focused on one scenic element of the old scene until it was too obscured by the new scene, at which point the most likely 'refocus' point would be in the new scene.

3D TV pwn to own. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366093)

Porn will power 3D tv........... no seriously! - DVD mutiangle releases: Porn. First full HD content recorded: Porn. etc... ... ...

Kleenex share price surge, guaranteed. ... ...
Profit. - Winner.

And I *so* want to hate Sony... (1)

pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366097)

Engadget's own pundit focuses on the more predictable problems of format wars between competing 3D display technologies.

What format wars? If Sony beats everyone else to market by a few years, Sony wins the next few decades, end of discussion.

Now, if (as has happened so often in Sony's history) someone else comes to market with a similar product at half the price... Well, BetaMax 3d, we hardly knew ye...

Point of view (2, Insightful)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366137)

If by "3D" they mean stereo images, then 3D TV is going to die a quick death. Stereo images are best viewed from one correct place, which means ONE seat in the center and at exactly the correct distance. It also means not tilting your head while watching. Headaches will ensue for a large part of the audience, and all other sorts of discomfort. Add onto that any annoyance of having to wear glasses and it's just over before it gets started.

If first person games haven't driven sales of "3D" computer monitors through the roof (or even off the floor) what makes anyone think 3D TV has a snowballs chance?

Re:Point of view (1)

joaommp (685612) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366349)

I agree. 3D technology for games has been out for quite a while and so far, the adoption seems far from a reality. The games industry is one of the industries that pushes more interface technologies into the wild and I'm yet to see a "best played in 3D" label on a game.

3D has been on movie theaters already. Where I live, almost all theaters are already 3D capable (using polarized glasses). At least a bit of distortion is noticeable and it's not easy to immediately get accustomed to it, but it's usable.

On the other hand, a 3D TV is the start of a possible mass adoption. Remember that when Marx said "religion is the people's opiate", he didn't know about the television. And the regular television also had it's rough start and poor quality and eventually evolved.

And, now, people can see the world's problems in another angle...

Re:Point of view (1)

ZuBsPaCe (1402415) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366359)

Marketing.

3D is cool, it's a natural progression, similar to going from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 which is so awesome.

Next thing we need is Slashdot3D! Holy smokes, how awesome would that be?

Re:Point of view (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366801)

If by "3D" they mean stereo images, then 3D TV is going to die a quick death. Stereo images are best viewed from one correct place, which means ONE seat in the center and at exactly the correct distance. It also means not tilting your head while watching. Headaches will ensue for a large part of the audience, and all other sorts of discomfort.

Which is, I suppose, why stereo "3D" doesn't work in movie theaters and isn't being adopted more broadly by studios and theaters as the technology to do it becomes more accessible.

If first person games haven't driven sales of "3D" computer monitors through the roof (or even off the floor) what makes anyone think 3D TV has a snowballs chance?

I dunno, maybe the FPS gamer market isn't much like the TV market, in terms of size, demographics, or anything else.

Meh (2, Informative)

ThomsonX (1196551) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366165)

Meh stereoscopic 3d sucks anyways, it not a natural way of viewing things.

Re:Meh (4, Funny)

Bat Country (829565) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366295)

Leelah?

hmm (5, Funny)

UncleWilly (1128141) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366167)

With regular TV it looks like she has a cute mole..

With HDTV I can see a hair growing from the mole..

With 3DTV...AHH....AHH....THE HAIR...IT'S TOUCHING ME

Production challenges (3, Interesting)

Tim82 (806662) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366169)

I can see this (and the whole of 3D cinema, to be honest) being a nightmare for directors/cameramen/producers.

I know that in the LOTR trilogy, they did a lot of clever work with perspectives, using split furniture/scenery and having actors closer/further away from the camera to make Gandalf appear significantly bigger than the hobbits, for example. I imagine this kind of trick is done quite a lot in TV production as well.

Stereoscopic cameras will mean that this trick just can't work - certain types of production just couldn't be done using camera tricks alone. It might be possible to add these effects using CGI or something - but would be a lot more expensive.

Re:Production challenges (3, Insightful)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366537)

Agreed, 3D is hard and limits your ability to use cheap tricks to make scenes look the way a producer wants.

For a big blockbuster movie, I can see it being worth the cash. You can drop megamillions on producing a movie and run a reasonable expectation of making it back over a relatively short period. 3D would just be added to the list of expensive special effects, and some people will pay a premium for the 3D version for home if it's available. But I really only see this useful for big blockbuster films.

For regular TV shows? Umm, no. Not anytime soon, at least. There will probably be a few shows that will be produced just because they want to be first to 3D, but they'll probably be about the same quality as a /. "first post" message thread.

You can take months and months to shoot a single movie and everyone can be OK with that because it's a movie - it's a one-shot deal and audiences expect a lot so you have to produce something special. For a TV show, you have to release 16 or 38 minutes of footage (once you chop out the commercials and credits from a 30- or 60-minute show) EVERY WEEK, for at least 10-15 weeks out of the year (used to be in the 20s, but most series release a lot fewer shows now).

So, release one movie a year, you have to create ~100-110 minutes of actual show. To release one short (10-episode) season of a "1-hour" show, you've got to create 380 minutes. Your return probably isn't going to be nearly as high, so you simply can't afford to sustain 3D filming for that amount of time year after year and make good money, unless 3D becomes a HUGE ratings boom for your show.

Add to that the complexity of setting up certain convincing shots (long lenses that can give the appearance of an actor being in the middle of an explosion when in reality he's hundreds of feet away, perspective shots, etc), and TV shows would have to either get a lot more expensive, or a lot shorter. Most shows wouldn't even be candidates. Reality shows, sitcoms, talk shows - what would be the point? Cinematic-quality shows like the "X-Files" would be excellent candidates, but they are cinematic quality because the producers used a LOT of camera tricks, so those would be priced right out of reach.

Still, there will probably be a demand built eventually. That's why I conditioned it with "not anytime soon". Possibly someday... but in order to have a big ratings boost because of 3D, you've got to have people watching and desiring 3D shows, which means they all need 3D gear at home, and they won't do that en masse until there's enough content to watch. Home video in 3D will start the adoption because movies are easy to justify in 3D. If that takes off some TV shows might eventually follow once adoption is high enough to get the eyeballs in, and filming becomes cheap enough to afford it.

It's to be expected (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366191)

At first there won't be too much 3D programming, but as the technology catches on, it will become more widespread. The same thing happened for HD shows in the early 2000s. And before that, stereo sound in the 80s. And before that, color in the 70s. And before that, actual television shows in the 50s.

Re:It's to be expected (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366873)

Or it will die a slow death of neglect. Like so many forgotten technologies.

Stereoscopic images have been touted as the next big thing every decade since 1880 or so. Why would this time be different?

Who cares about 3D-everything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366203)

Am I alone in not feeling like all programming must be in 3D? I'm okay with 2D pictures, and I'm even okay when it is being seen on a plain old non-HD tv. (I've watched lot's of programming on other people's HD tv's, and I find most of it looks worse than my CRT. But that's a whole other story.) Not everything needs to be a virtual reality roller coaster. (Yes, Grumpy Old Man Syndrome setting in early...)

Coming Problems (4, Funny)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366211)

Dodging money shots.

Re:Coming Problems (2, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366387)

Try dodging dumb shows or plot lines revolving around constantly over doing the 3D effects.

All we need is a "Michal Bay of 3D" and the whole 3D hype will die in an instant.

Imagine actors continuously throwing things or lunging towards you. Nobody does this in real-life.

The pr0n producers are drooling about this... (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366245)

IIRC, when HD and Blu Ray were fighting it was over the rights to the movies from big-name studios like Disney and Sony (duh!) and Fox. Now, it will be MyHotBabes Studios competing with BrownWrappedPackage Inc.

Psychological issues with seeing 3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366251)

When I was younger, I found 3-D movies to be incredibly convincing. I remember seeing a film where a fisherman pointed a spear at the camera (insert phallic joke here) and I was convinced that it was no more than a couple inches in front of my face.

Fast forward 25 years and I continue to *hear* how 3-D just keeps getting better. To me, it seems to be getting worse due to psychological reasons. The two most recent 3-D films I've seen were Up and some other animated film about kids investigating a haunted house. My problems:

1) I can see ghosting. Put a light character in front of a dark background (like a cave opening) and I can see ghosted copies of it. Up had this problem as well. Instantly takes me out of the movie.

2) I'm no longer convinced by the 3-D effect. I can see stuff that goes into the screen, but my mind isn't convinced anymore that people/objects "pop out" of the screen.

3) Colours feel dull. Looking at the shots of the balloons lifting the house in Up, I thought back to the trailer and how much more vivid the colours felt without the glasses on my face.

Is *any* of this going to be addressed? Looking at the FT article about Sony's plans, it seems like the same old stuff you'd get in the theatre which, to me, doesn't work. I've been to a couple of Imax 3-D films and the same issues exist.

Re:Psychological issues with seeing 3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366457)

The two most recent 3-D films I've seen were Up and some other animated film about kids investigating a haunted house. My problems:

1) I can see ghosting.

Duh! The movie was about kids investigating a haunted house. Of course you're going to see ghosting. Otherwise, what's the point?

Re:Psychological issues with seeing 3-D (2, Insightful)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366741)

Yeah current 3D tech isn't really current at all - but the old 3D tech with some new shoes. The liquid crystal glasses with an external screen are the root cause of most of the issues - the off to on speed is rapid, but it still lets some light through and the 3D effect is only as good as the constraints as your distance and orientation to the screen.

Most of the problems go away once you put two separate images in the glasses themselves.

1) I can see ghosting. Put a light character in front of a dark background (like a cave opening) and I can see ghosted copies of it. Up had this problem as well. Instantly takes me out of the movie.

2) I'm no longer convinced by the 3-D effect. I can see stuff that goes into the screen, but my mind isn't convinced anymore that people/objects "pop out" of the screen.

3) Colours feel dull. Looking at the shots of the balloons lifting the house in Up, I thought back to the trailer and how much more vivid the colours felt without the glasses on my face.

(1) Yep, as I mention, the LC glasses and/or polarised lenses don't really give two separate images per eye - there's no way to completely eliminate the image bleeding between eyes with them.

(2) The screen is static to your micro head movements - everyone has micro movements of their head while sitting and a fixed screen some distance away doesn't actually reflect these micro movements and you get bad parallax feedback - giving the brain a hint that the 3D isn't "real". Getting older makes us more sensitive to these parallax cues thanks to experience :-)

(3) Due to the tech problems (LC / polarised light).

Roll on decent 3D glasses where the screen is in the glasses - the ultimate of course would be to put the image directly on the retina but I haven't heard anything about this for quite some time now.

Go the the "meant to be seen" 3d site - there's a lot of enthusiasts currently playing with the tec and there are a number of head mounted displays on the market that put the images directly infront of the eyes. The resolution currently sucks and it's mostly limited to 3D gaming for the moment, but it's coming :-)

BTW - for anyone who thinks that the "no glasses" thing is a necessity for decent 3D - well due to (2) above - you will never quite "get" immersive 3D.

Hologram says what (1)

zmnatz (1502127) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366267)

Screw this. I'm waiting for all progamming to just be holograms ala The Jetsons. Until then, I'l stick with my standard HDTV thank you very much.

But the most important question is (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366281)

Will 3D TV support Quad Sound?

Why a format war? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366287)

3D will most likely be added to Blu-Ray players and designed to be backwards compatible (I'm sure extra information can be encoded in a video stream even if the extra info is another video stream). This will need to be sent along an HDMI cable to a 3D capable TV. The TV will be able to decide how to handle the signal, and whether it uses a crude red/green filter, or a sophisticated head tracking projector technology, it will be up to the television to handle the display.

Fah. (2, Insightful)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366305)

I would be happier if all the bugs were worked out of the switch to HD first. Like how the picture and sound do not sync up, strange artifacts, the whole thing just cutting out and back in. This was on Cox at a relative's house over the weekend. There were still problems over the air, and this location is less than five miles from the transmitters for all the stations in the area.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366321)

I can honestly say I have no interest in 3d tv. none. I do have an hdtv and love it, but I lusted after them for years waiting for them to be in my price range. There is no lust in my heart for 3d tv.

Really? (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366331)

Why bother with creating better content when you can throw in a technology gimmick, right?

Another 3D Display by Philips (1)

rastan (43536) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366339)

Look here [wired.com] for a wired article on a Philips 3D display, the "WOW vx". No glasses or head set required. Just stand there and watch. I have seen it myself last year at SEMICON Europa. One word: impressive.

Single-lens 3D (2, Informative)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366353)

Despite what the articles says, I think projection is still just a big of a challenge as capture. Firstly, consumer acceptance will remain low as long as you need to wear silly glasses. Second, there are some neat technologies in development for capture.

The article points out the most obvious way to do capture: use two independent cameras. However I recently found out about efforts to build "single-lens 3D" cameras. One example of a company working on this is I See 3D [isee3d.com] (disclosure: I'm indirectly a small-time investor). The idea is to use special high-speed shutters inside the camera (intersecting the optical path) to select left-biased or right-biased imaging. The advantage is that it is much cheaper, since you only need a single sequence of lenses, and only a single detector. This also means that it should be possible to rather cheaply build this into existing manufacturing lines. And a 3D camera of this sort could revert to 2D mode quite easily. A drawback of this type of system is that you can't alter the effective distance between the left- and right- viewing angles (which could be a big deal, depending on distance to subject and the zoom you want to use).

I think such technologies are in particular interesting because they have the chance of being integrated into consumer devices in the near term. I think 3D will really "take off" when people can actually capture 3D with their cell phones and digital cameras. Once people are able to make their own 3D home movies, they will be much more inclined to invest in 3D TVs, players, and so on.

Re:Single-lens 3D (1)

ax1m (1392635) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366815)

You're right about the glasses barrier. There are a lot of people that say that, but an large proportion of those change their mind once you have shown them a good quality film on a good quality screen (something like a Hyundai or JVC circular polarised lcd). They also tend to realise that cutting between shots, pans etc. is not such a big deal - and certainly doesn't cause headaches when done properly.

The viewing angle issue is really not a big deal either these days, there is less viewable angle than standard LCDs but you are still talking about a very reasonable viewing angle.

The implications of not being able to control the inter-axial distance between inputs (horizontal distance between lenses) when shooting precludes the use of single body 3D cameras in any kind of serious production environment. For the purposes of home experimentation there may be a market. Proper solutions include the P+S Technik mirror rig for closeup: http://www.inition.co.uk/inition/product.php?URL_=product_stereovis_pstechnik_mirrorrig&SubCatID_=81 [inition.co.uk] or side-by-side rigs for other shots (actually, small cameras like the Toshiba mini CCDs work well for closeups on side-by-side rigs).

Autostereoscopic (no glasses) systems are a long way from being effective for home use - Philips just canned their WowVX project, and the current best market players, Alioscopy, are a long way from producing a consumer product (>5 years I reckon).

I work with these technologies every day and recognise that they are not for everyone, but I'm sure that people will take up 3D home viewing for special events, like films and sports, as the technology for viewing with polarised glasses in the home becomes more and more affordable, and the content on offer becomes more and more attractive.

Re:Single-lens 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366835)

The iSee3D system also incurs problems with depth of field (out of focus elements) due to the shuttering of a discrete area, loses half the light sensitivity, reduces the frame rate by half, etc. etc. In addition, it's an element that has to be added into the camera.. so it's not a bolt-on solution.

No one system is going to be perfect, of course, which is why it's great that there are many, many options available to photographers and filmographers. iSee3D is promising from an economic and usability viewpoint, if nothing else.
( similar but cheaper would be consumer/prosumer products like 3d lens-in-a-cap - but more of a hassle to work with and lower image quality.. suffers from most of the same problems, but not the frame rate one. )

3DTv? Not for me (3, Funny)

thredder (1211746) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366367)

I think I'll just wait until 4D Tv comes around. Just a matter of time....

I Want LOSSLESS and high dynamic range (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366441)

3D -- Meh!
No more "jpeggy" artifacts -- FOR THE WIN!

I don't want 3D -- give me lossless encodings with full gamut color, high dynamic range and enhanced contrast.

Previous art (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366493)

There already is 3d entertainment, its not doing too hot. It's called plays.

Re:Previous art (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366775)

There already is 3d entertainment, its not doing too hot. It's called plays.

Err .. maybe I suggest that Slashdot isn't the most appropriate audience for that comment?

Plays, BTW, are very much 2D. Theatre, by contrast ... ;-)

2010 couldnt come soon enough... (0, Troll)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366519)

...after having seen the Avatar IMAX footage I can't wait to be able to show that in it's full 3D splendor in my HT. Let's also not forget that the PS3 will be able to support 3D which makes games the most obvious benefactor of this new technology. I couldn't care less if it takes the world of television years to figure this out. Game companies are the best at taking advantage of new tech and if the Wii is any indication of whats to come it wont take much time at all for companies to find ways of incorporating 3D into the games.

Let me guess...the guy who wrote this article also wrote the one about "Sony is teh doomed" for removing linux support from the PS3.

Part of the market already loss (1)

Zen-Mind (699854) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366567)

I'm among the few (1-5%) who suffer from amblyopia [wikipedia.org] , this, among other things, mean that stereoscopic 3D has no real effect on me. On another thought I think the way they decided to go is a rip-off. First, I think Sony plans on delivering 3D only on top-of-the-line 240Hz TVs, when 120Hz is enough (ok, not ideal, but who cares). Second, they probably could have introduced a 3D upgrade kits for existing TVs instead of something completely new; such kits are already available for PC for ~200$.

sports are a natural fit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29366575)

sitcoms and reality shows may not lend themselves well to 3D, but the article is missing the biggest and easiest market - sporting events. The NFL is always looking for some new money maker, and they've already tested 3D broadcasts. Games like football, basketball, and hockey also lend themselves to 3D filming because they're played in enclosed areas and already have multiple cameras filming at all times from multiple angles. Unlike sitcoms they also would actually give the viewer some benefit in being able to view the game in a more natural way. I'd bet that the NFL starts broadcasting games in 3D in about 5 years.

3D movies big topic at SIGGRAPH in recent years (2, Interesting)

peter303 (12292) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366625)

The New Scientist is correct in saying that new artistic techniques are necessary to properly utilize 3D. However Hollywood has been working on this for several years now. My eyes were opened at recent SIGGRAPH sessions on technical and artistic issues involved. Technical includes avoiding complicated scenes where a foreground object might block one eye-view of the region of intersest. You might not notice these drop-outs consciously, but they can cause viewer headaches.

From an artistic point of view the director has control on the "amount of 3D" in a scene. Elements of interest can be highlighted or even exaggerated in 3D, while backgrounds or less important elements may fade to 2D. For example the company that has been "dimensionalizing" Star Wars movies for Lucas ("dimensionalizing" is converting old stock to 3D from stereo clues in film, similar to what "colorizing" does to B&W). The showed a minute-long clip of a Star Wars space battle scene dimenensionalized in around eight different ways. And the results are artisitically different depending on what the director wants to emphasize.

(P.S. Lucas is perfectionist and not completely happy with the current state of dimensionalization, so he hasnt released the 3D versions yet. The parts I saw were amazing and I cant wait for the entire movies.)

Bah Humbug! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#29366851)

2013: "You mean I paid 4 grand for a @#!% dying fad?"

Until there's almost zero discomfort and minimal additional cost to 3D, it'll merely pass in the night. The novelty wears off quickly.
           

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?